New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

@Irace86.2.0 yes, Musk accepted less in salary during those "lean" years. At that point Musk was already a billionaire so he could well afford to do that for what were, for him, passion projects. I respect him for putting his money where his passion is, but I'm not sure it's as magnanimous as you are seemingly making it out to be.

I mean, Lucid's CEO could afford to do the same too. He is a millionaire with a large salary.

Yes, at the point where Tesla was selling the volume Lucid is selling at Elon was a billionaire, but also had grown his wealth from the value of stocks tied to Tesla and SpaceX. It wasn't from wages and stock awards. For reference, in 2010 his share of Tesla stock was worth $219 million, of which, he had put in over $30 million of his own money at its founding. He also put $100 million of his $175 million payout when selling PayPal into starting SpaceX, so basically he invested almost all of his money into two companies, both of which were hemorrhaging money and struggling for years before becoming stable. While his wealth had grown, his wealth was directly tied to the performance of the companies, and his stock options, which gave him the right to buy more stock in Tesla, still weren't vested, so it wasn't like he could cash out and bail without taking a huge loss or walking away from millions if not billions in the process. Again, this is a stark contrast to what Lucid is doing to with their CEO.

I think Lucid is trying to follow in the footsteps of Tesla, and they may do fine, but there are a few things I see that make them different. For one thing, the payout to the CEO is disproportionately large and is not tied to the future value and growth of the company, even if it can be, and that is concerning. Two, the company seems to be trying to make the pinnacle of EV technology to best Tesla and Rivian and legacy manufactures, so they can make a name for themselves, but they seem to be doing so without making sure it is feasible. There is no reason to over-engineer parts by doubling the cost in order for something that is 5% better, but that seems to be their mantra: how can we make the best car, irregardless of whether the value for the cost translates for the customer. Tesla seems to be doing the opposite by making a compelling product where costs and value are maximized, but where it won't impede manufacturing speed, overhead, material acquisition, etc, so the car will be feasible and profitable.

Tesla was in the red for years. Amazon was in the red for years. It is fine to be in the red if that is from investing in the company, but apparently, Lucid is investing a lot into one man. The company is giving this guy around 10% of its liquidable assets in the form of stocks that could otherwise be used to grow the company or retain as assets in the event the company needs to liquidate those assets to stay afloat. Hopefully they are making the right decision. I'm also wondering what the future holds for this CEO's salary given the current pattern of awards.

Elon Musk is currently working for Tesla for free. That could change
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/20/inves...pay/index.html

https://invezz.com/net-worth/elon-musk-net-worth/

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Elon Musk is currently working for Tesla for free. That could change

Well, not really. He is working for stock options and improving the value of those options, which he has exercised as described in the article...

He became one of the richest people on the planet through lucrative packages of stock options that gave him the right to buy hundreds of millions of shares of stock for a fraction of their market price, if the company hit various financial and market value targets.

The package of options he was granted in 2012 expired last year after he had received 9 of 10 blocks of potential options. And last month the company disclosed Musk received the last remaining block of options granted under an even more lucrative 2018 pay package.

I agree Lucid's Board is running an odd compensation package that makes no real sense in their situation, but hey, I can't blame a guy for taking it if it's offered.

[Irace86.2.0]

Seems like revenue and net income are mismatched for Lucid and doesn't justify such a huge payout for the CEO. Again, they should have given him stock options to invest his own money into the company than giving him stock awards, and those options should vest as the company grows.

[Lantanafrs2]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem...ens-ev-mandate

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem...ens-ev-mandate

I mean it is an attempt, if ultimately doomed from the start because Biden would veto it. They will have to wait for more control of the senate and see if Trump or DeSantis get into office before making a realistic effort.

"Republicans are employing scare tactics to deliberately mislead the American people about EVs in order to prop up Big Oil corporations," the memo stated. "The reality is that EVs are already popular, cheaper to own, and ongoing technological advancements are translating to better options for consumers every year."

Following the vote Wednesday, the CARS Act now moves to the Senate, where it has already received bipartisan support. However, the White House said in a statement Monday that President Biden would veto the CARS Act if it is passed.

I also don't know if California's "mandate" and those of other states would be enough on their own. It has in the past considering the size of the market.

When Trump was trying to roll back standards, manufactures were scrambling to make alliances to agree to stick to the standards set forth by California et. al., and they went from lobbying pre-POTUS Trump and POTUS Trump to roll back standards to basically freaking out and lobbying the opposite after it became clear that it might turn into a "states rights" argument, fearing that there might be a California alliance standard and a federal standard, or worse, an even more fractured system. The manufactures then decided to be unified and agreed to the alliance of states that had sued the Trump administration to meet Obama-era standards (California et. al), which saved them for having to design cars for two or more emission standards--a more detrimental and expensive proposition.

Major automakers buck Trump’s emissions rollback by signing deal with California
https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/25/2...alifornia-deal

[Dadhawk]

First photo I've seen of the GM/Flying J charging stations.

Nice pull-through lanes so you can charge if towing, or if your plug isn't in a Tesla standard location. Odd part, it looks like both cars were charging with the other's cable.

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

First photo I've seen of the GM/Flying J charging stations.

Nice pull-through lanes so you can charge if towing, or if your plug isn't in a Tesla standard location. Odd part, it looks like both cars were charging with the other's cable.

they're just sharing a romantic moment, much like when a couple would intertwine their arms to drink from each other's beverage.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

they're just sharing a romantic moment, much like when a couple would intertwine their arms to drink from each other's beverage.

Apparently the guy in the LYRIQ (he posted the pic on a different forum) said the Bolt on the other side was already charging with the "wrong" cable so he just followed suit.

The good thing is the cables are long enough to do what you need to do.

[Ultramaroon]

Awww....

[Lantanafrs2]

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/11/f-15...s-in-half.html

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/11/f-15...s-in-half.html

I think these articles are a little misleading personally. Sales are not decreasing, they are increasing. It's just the OEMs were a bit optimistic on how many they could bill/sale at the price they are currently charging for them. There are only so many folks that can afford a $100,000 (+/-) vehicle and that market is near saturated.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/11/f-15...s-in-half.html

https://www.motortrend.com/news/ford...s%20per%20week.

I have a feeling EVs like the lightning aren't growing as fast as they hoped because the price is so high like Motortrend mentions above, but it goes worse than that. BEVs are more expensive at POS than ICEVs, so that, on top of high interest rates, are probably pushing buyers out of the market. Even if the BEVs will save some money over time over a similar ICEVs of the same spec, a person has to be able to qualify for the car at POS.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

[url]...Even if the BEVs will save some money over time over a similar ICEVs of the same spec, a person has to be able to qualify for the car at POS.

Only a very small percentage of buyers come close to considering long-term costs. It's all about the monthly payment with zero money down.

Most persons don't even understand the concept of paying cash for a vehicle.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I think these articles are a little misleading personally. Sales are not decreasing, they are increasing. It's just the OEMs were a bit optimistic on how many they could bill/sale at the price they are currently charging for them. There are only so many folks that can afford a $100,000 (+/-) vehicle and that market is near saturated.

Agreed, it's dishonest. Like when the government says they're cutting spending. When in actuality, they're just reducing the rate of INCREASED spending, lol. If sales increase, but at a slower rate, they're still increasing. It's almost like nobody in charge ever took a few mathematic courses